Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On 22 Aug, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> But, for a markup language to be useful in marking up complex and
>> multifaceted real-world content, there may be no other way than to
>> create a complex language specification.
>
> That depends on whether you create /one/ language to mark up /all/
> real-world content or not.
>
> The problem with creating an authorcentric markup language that can
> be, via attributes, infinitly extended, is that you are adding near
> infinite complexity on the /user/ end of things.
Completely agree (although I didn't touch on it in my replies, admittedly).
> Practice in the SGML world has always been to create specialized
> languages. HTML is - and XHTML could have been - a limited, but
> generic, language. It's not meant to mark up everything.
In this case then, using extensibility and namespacing, things like
CompSci specific markup, as well as mathematical/chemical/etc
specialised languages should be used, rather than keeping those very
specific (in the case of samp,kbd,var) and those completely
inappropriate (imho) elements (sub/sup) completely out of the generic
language.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________